Sunday, 30 March 2014

Maybe you were not that excited that 2012 gave you a choice between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama. I sympathize — I liked Rick Perry. But how is President Romney vs. President Obama a hard choice? How is Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell vs. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid a hard choice? How is Speaker of the House John Boehner vs. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi a hard choice?

It isn’t.

Even if you think that Romney is a squishy RINO Massachusetts technocrat with a secret crush on Obamacare, you have to be on the wrong side of the border between ideologically hardcore and ideologically blinded to conclude that spending four years fighting against the very worst imaginable tendencies of a Romney administration would have been anything other than wine and roses compared with spending four years fighting against the very worst tendencies of an Obama administration, especially when the president is in the position of never having to face another election.

The Koch brothers have been slapped with a $79,000 judgment for failing to protect their employees with workers’ compensation insurance. Oh wait, it wasn’t the Koch brothers, it was Tina Fey. (Via Drudge.)

The crew on Fox News Channel’s Special Report had a great deal of fun last night contemplating what Obambi and the Pope discussed in their meeting. Obambi wants us to believe it was all about income inequality, the Pope seems to recall some talk of the freedom of conscience of American Catholics. Gosh, which of these men should be believed?

The veracity gap between our president and the Pope is the least of it. Does Obambi really expect us to believe that Pope Francis, who comes from a nation with real poverty and sees a world with even more, cares much about Obambi’s efforts to make the richest poor people in the world—the richest poor people in human history—even richer by expanding the American welfare state?

Thursday, 27 March 2014

Like most of Chuck Schumer’s ideas there’s more than one thing wrong with this:

The number two Republican in the Senate is lambasting a media “shield law” proposed by New York Democrat Sen. Chuck Schumer, potentially imperiling its shot at passage.

[...]

Schumer's proposal would exempt a “covered journalist” from subpoenas and other legal requirements to expose their confidential sources in leak investigations and other areas. Other lawmakers have proposed similar ideas in the past, but the effort gained new momentum after a series of revelations about controversial tactics the Justice Department was using to target journalists.

First, there should be no “journalism exception” to our espionage laws. Second, the First Amendment protects journalism itself—including what you’re reading right now—not the practice of journalism by government-licensed individuals or corporations. It’s unclear whether the courts would extend the protection to all if this distinction were challenged. (Via Drudge.)